I concur. And after reading David's recent two posts, my gut (I know they are not facts nor matter out there) feels as it has for some time on two points (one of which I think I indirectly referenced a few weeks ago):

1. as state budget deficits continue to probably exacerbate in the future, states are going to get a little more desperate hunting down new revenue streams however big or small (pot, sports betting, online gambling etc.) and

2. based on 1, the pooling argument between states online poker operations becomes more sound financially, albeit however small in the beginning. Gotta crawl before you can walk right?

Unfortunately, everything is probably going to take a **** load of time. Like I said before, the question is not if but when. Will online poker at scale resurrect (at least in a good number of states with liquidity between them) come in the next 5 years or 50 years is anybody's guess imho.

News today that the DOJ has filed its intent to appeal the recent District Court ruling which determined that the 1961 Wire Act applies solely to sports betting, and not to all cross-state online gambling.

https://www.onlinepokerreport.com/38...t-case-appeal/

Here's an update on the New Hampshire Wire Act case.



PokerStars soft launched today in Pennsylvania, but there won't be any "shared liquidity" with players from other states for the time being.

My assumption, FWIW, is that Pennsylvania is not waiting for the DOJ to share liquidity.

That said, Pennsylvania takes forever on pretty much everything, so shared liquidity probably won't be any different. We're hoping to hear about it happening in the next couple of years some time at least. Hopefully quicker than that

Here's a November 13th article from pokerfuse that includes quotes from iDEA Growth founding member Jeff Ifrah.

In the interview, Ifrah gives his thoughts on what the DOJ Wire Act case delay could mean.

https://pokerfuse.com/news/law-and-r...wire-act-case/

At the end of the article, Michael Gentile writes that "the PGCB has given no indication that it will consider shared liquidity before the Wire Act situation is settled once and for all."

This is the first I've heard that Pennsylvania may consider sharing liquidity without an official clarification of the DOJ's Wire Act interpretation beforehand.

UPDATE: According to a Dec 19th OPR article by Matthew Waters, the DOJ has extended its Wire Act compliance enforcement deadline to June 30th, 2020.

"Online gambling operators will get six months added to the forbearance period for enforcement of the new Wire Act opinion."

https://www.onlinepokerreport.com/39...act-extension/

The story references the latest memo issued by Deputy U.S. Attorney General Jeff Rosen, in relation to the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel's Nov 2018 revised Wire Act opinion.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-re...27681/download
---

My initial take is similar to what Matthew Waters wrote... that the "deadline didn't require an update" due to how it intertwines with the DOJ's pending appeal of NH Lottery Commission suit ruling handed down in U.S. District Court.

Perhaps the date extension could signal that the DOJ is contemplating an H1-2020 clarification/resolution to the revised Wire Act interpretation, but that's pure speculation on my part.

Or maybe they just don't want to give other gambling corporations standing to join the suit - just my speculation.

UPDATE: DOJ submits opening brief in appeal of New Hampshire Lottery Commission suit District Court ruling.

https://www.onlinepokerreport.com/39...re-act-appeal/

"Undeterred by the District Court ruling, the Department of Justice filed an appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals over the summer. Just 47 minutes before last Friday’s deadline, the government finally filed its opening brief."

UPDATE: Steve Ruddock reports that a new anti-online gambling bill has surfaced in the United States Congress.

"The bill stops short of recommending a 'restoration' of the 1961 Wire Act (that is already playing in the courts at the moment) and instead calls on the government to study the situation, but under the auspices that online gambling is illegal, despite the numerous states that have legalized online poker, casino games, sports betting, and lottery products."

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-...bill/3322/text

Ruddock opines that this latest proposal has "a snowball's chance in hell" of passing and "seems destined for the scrap heap" due to the proposed legislation's alignment with known Sheldon Adelson-backed CSIG legal theory/rhetoric.

National Council on Problem Gambling Exec. Director Keith Whyte (learn more about the NCPG's national Problem Gambling Hotline via this post) "might not be so sanguine this bill won't go anywhere."



DISCLOSURE NOTICE: The NCPG is currently supported by "Presidents' Level" contributors: (a) Las Vegas Sands Corp. -- Sheldon Adelson CEO, (b) MGM Resorts International, and (c) GVC Holdings -- parent company of partypoker.

The NCPG is also currently supported by "Directors' Level" contributor Mohegan Sun, along with "Executive Level" contributors: (a) IGT, (b) Caesars Entertainment (parent company of WSOP), and (c) the Association of Gaming Equipment Manufacturers (AGEM).

https://www.ncpgambling.org/presidents-circle/

"The Prevention of Deceptive or Child-Targeted Advertising in Violation of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act."

How good of Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton to think of the children.

Reading the text of the bill, I surmise that the intent is to get the FTC to crack down on:
Online gambling apps that appear in app stores; and
In-app advertising for online gambling.

I'm not an expert on the subject, but with or without a change to the wire transfer act, it seems that there are endless federal and state laws that prohibit gambling unless you're one of the specially approved fancy pants people with licenses to run such an operation. A person like me could code a poker site, but I've never even touched such an idea because I understand that simply put, it's against the law and they've put people in prison who try such things. Unless of course you're rich enough to buy your way out.



Even with a wire act overturning, how would anyone overcome such laws? For anyone to have hope in poker returning to America, there would have to be someone from inside the government who gets licenses and starts it up, someone who lobbies millions of dollars to get licensing, or start-ups that simply don't obey the laws and are willing to risk the consequences. You could also hope that they one day decide that poker is a game of skill and therefore isn't gambling, which would open a few doors. But unfortunately I believe that games of skill are limited to certain amounts of money as well so that wager sizes tend to have a cap.

Again, I'm not at all an expert on the subject, but this is just how I see it. I wish we could have clean and fair games again. The industry leaders and laws really collapsed a game that could have been made into a great and clean sport.

Promote live poker at casinos again. That's the future. And always lobby for a fair shuffle and markless cards.

Yep. But there's a strong contingent within the iGaming industry that still insists on waiving its peacock feathers before the federal government while doing a comical rendition of "Moses Valet Parking" from The Office U.S. when it comes to caring for its own internet poker products.



Regardless of whether those people succeed/don't succeed in their eternal, unsustainable "shakedown" revenue-generation funnels, there are people (yes, human beings) capable of combining puzzle game theory with real-time Tamagotchi troubleshooting gameplay to initiate community-based policymaking in an environment that doesn't bend "poker people" (or any human really) over the rails with legacy fanfare driven by traditional "lobbyist" hounds who have been (for the most part) mangy and starved since c. 2013 due to their incessant denials, irresponsible and malicious marketing against players they propped-up (who by the way, are specifically excluded from potential enforcement linked to the DOJ's revised take on the Wire Act), and failure to accept any form of accountability -- to the point where they actively seek to pass off all social burdens associated with their products onto customers (regardless of skill level).

Calm is coming on some of this (try out some of the introductory level YouTube "walkthrough" videos from Keith Ballard of video game The Witness (2014) to get a very vague glimpse at how policymaking must consider multiple perspectives in order to be effective, even on the most basic/fundamental levels of scaled-down troubleshooting.

Much of how U.S. online poker is structured now is unsustainable within any regulatory environment that seeks out solutions to real issues that will compel the online peer-to-peer gambling market to adjust (really all online gambling markets to a point imo, but wtf would we know?).

Marketing and other sensitive issues are under the microscope and solutions are needed if there's really any hope for a cross-state, compacted U.S. online poker market to benefit the whole "U.S. licensed casino" picture. Hopefully there will be a continued flow of (free) guidance coming in to U.S. poker players (and gamblers in general) on how to best influence licensed land-based and online poker rooms that they patronize in a manner that is conducive to the environment one desires/enjoys/receives an entertainment value from.

Cheers,

-David

David,

I'd pay $10 to the first poster who can successfully diagram that sentence.

Ha. Yeah, I know. I get worked up and write run-on sentences. Been that way for as long as I can remember.

Interesting times. Hope all is well.

Remind me, when exactly did we have that?

I believe the golden era of clean games were in the early to mid 2000s.

Tell that to Men the Master.

So right around the time these were occurring:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cereus...ating_incident
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cereus...eating_scandal

Yes, this along with many other things destroyed the legitimacy of the poker industry. That's why I believe the golden age was up until the mid 2000s.

NY Governor Andrew Cuomo: "Mr. President Donald Dump, your People are not well. We better call an ambulance."
Las Vegas Magnate Sheldy Adolfucenson: "**** them! Now, you listen to me! I want gambling reopened right now. Get those gamblers back in here! Turn those machines back on! TURN THOSE MACHINES BACK ON!!!"

Here's a May 26th update from John Brennan on behalf of SportsHandle.

https://sportshandle.com/new-hampshire-lottery-doj/

"The U.S. Department of Justice filed a 33-page brief to the First Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday, seeking to overturn a lower-court ruling last year that invalidated a November 2018 Office of Legal Counsel opinion regarding the Wire Act of 1961."

Here's a link to the 33-page brief: https://sportshandle.com/wp-content/...t-May-2020.pdf

dark I know but I didn't think Sheldon would still be with us now 10 years ago, or would have at least realized he has been wrong by now.

I really wish there was a number somewhere for all his donations to politicians to this "cause" and his coalition over the last decade. Was it even worth it for him financially? Would online gambling destroy his business as he has obviously feared so much? Has it elsewhere in the world? No. Has it increased land based casino play in other places? Yes. He could have used that money to get himself in a good position, possibly less than what he has spent over the last decade. He has certainly won this crusade though, but not all of his political crusades have paid off, I guess it's like being a VC for him, just gamble and see what you can do.

UPDATE: According to this article by gaming lawyer Mac VerStandig via PokerNews, "the implications for the poker community could hardly be greater" because the New Hampshire Lottery Commission vs. Barr suit will be heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit starting Thursday, June 18th.

https://www.pokernews.com/news/2020/...-act-37444.htm (June 13, 2020)

According to VerStandig's Twitter account, the implications are so meaningful because "a federal appeals court is going to decide if online poker is criminal."